NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report April 1995

Minority Undergraduate

Participation in Postsecondary

Education

Contractor Report

Laura Horn

MPR Associates, Inc.

2150 Shattuck Ave., Suite 800

Berkeley, CA 94704-1321

Carlyle Maw

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

Data Series: NPSAS: 89/90, BPS:90/92

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 95-166
iii

Highlights

The purpose of this report is to provide information concerning minority undergraduate participation in postsecondary education based on the National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90) and to examine postsecondary persistence among racial–

ethnic groups using the longitudinal component of NPSAS:90: Beginning Postsecondary

Students (BPS:90/92).

• After a dramatic increase in minority enrollment in the 1960s and 1970s, there was

uneven progress made in the decade between 1980 and 1990. For example, the

proportion of black, non-Hispanic students enrolled in institutions of higher

education changed little between 1980 and 1990, ranging from 9.2 percent of the

higher education population in 1980 to 8.7 percent in 1988, and rising again to 8.9

percent in 1990. It is encouraging to note, however, that the share of black, nonHispanic students increased to 9.6 percent in 1992. This recent increase in black,

non-Hispanic enrollment rates was noted for both males (7.6 to 8.2 percent) and

females (10.0 to 10.8 percent).

• American Indians/Alaskan Natives also experienced little growth in enrollment in

the 1980s, but their enrollment increased from 103,000 to 119,000 between 1990

and 1992, representing an increase of 0.1 percent in their proportion among all

undergraduates enrolled in higher education (0.7 to 0.8 percent).

• Among black, non-Hispanic undergraduates, nearly two-thirds of students enrolled

were women, compared with 53 percent of Hispanics and 55 percent of white,

non-Hispanic students.

• Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic students were more likely to be enrolled in

private, for-profit institutions (20 percent and 15 percent, respectively), and less

likely to be enrolled in 4-year colleges or universities than were white, nonHispanic students. American Indians/Alaskan Natives were also less likely than

white, non-Hispanic students to be enrolled in 4-year institutions.

• On the other hand, American Indians/Alaskan Natives; black, non-Hispanics; and

Hispanic undergraduates were no less likely than white, non-Hispanic students to

aspire to a bachelor’s or advanced degree.

Undergraduates who attended historically black colleges or universities (HBCUs)

were more likely to aspire to an advanced degree than were students at other 4-

year colleges or universities.

• Persistence rates for 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree tended to be higher for Asian/Pacific Islander students than for

black, non-Hispanic or Hispanic students. (Nearly 70 percent of Asians/Pacific
iv

Islanders were continuously enrolled through spring 1992, compared with 50

percent of black, non-Hispanic students and 46 percent of Hispanic students.)

However, white, non-Hispanic students’ persistence rates (58 percent), did not

differ significantly from any other group.

• In 1989–90, undergraduates of all racial–ethnic minority groups were less well off

financially than their white, non-Hispanic peers: one-third or more of minority

students, including 41 percent of black, non-Hispanic students, were in the lowest

family income quartile, compared with about 20 percent of white, non-Hispanic

students.

• Among Hispanic ethnic groups, however, Cuban Americans were much more

affluent than Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans: 37 percent of Cuban

Americans were in the highest income quartile, compared with about 16 percent of

either Mexican Americans or Puerto Ricans.

• Among Asian ethnic groups, Vietnamese undergraduates were among the poorest,

with about two-thirds of these students in the lowest income quartile.
v

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to the production of this

report. At MPR Associates, Mark Premo and Sonya Geis provided invaluable assistance in

running tables and producing graphics; Susan Choy reviewed the report and provided

helpful criticism; Andrea Livingston and Karen Singson edited the report; and Lynn Sally

formatted the report and tables.

We thank the reviewers whose criticism significantly improved the final report.

NCES reviewers included Sal Corrallo, Robert Burton, Tim Madigan, and Marilyn

McMillen. We are especially grateful to Deborah Carter from American Council on

Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education, and Robin Etter Zúñiga from

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Office of Research and Policy

Analysis who, in addition to reviewing the final report, provided assistance in the

beginning of the study.
vi

Foreword

This report describes the educational experiences of undergraduate minority

students for the academic year 1989–90, and the persistence of those minority students

who first began their education in 1989–90 as of spring 1992. Specifically, it examines the

institutions in which minority undergraduates first enrolled and the reasons they chose to

attend these institutions; their degree objectives; and their educational aspirations.

Persistence of beginning postsecondary minority undergraduates is presented according to

attainment for sub-baccalaureate awards and 3-year persistence rates for those pursuing

bachelor’s degrees.

The report relies primarily on data from the 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90) and the first followup of its longitudinal component, the

Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS:90/92) Survey. The NPSAS:90 survey was

designed to answer fundamental questions about financial aid and to examine

undergraduates’ educational expenses, sources, and types of financial aid. The BPS:90/92

survey was designed to follow students just beginning their postsecondary education and

to provide information about enrollment, persistence, and attainment.

The NPSAS and BPS data supplement and expand upon the “Fall Enrollment”

data routinely collected as part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS) from postsecondary institutions. The latest IPEDS report describing minority

enrollments is Trends in Enrollment in Higher Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category:

Fall 1982 Through Fall 1992 (NCES 94-104, March 1994).

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:90 and

BPS:90/92 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that

allows users to specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS and BPS data. The

DAS produces design-adjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical

significance of differences shown in the tables. For more information about the DAS,

readers should consult appendix B of this report.
vii

Table of Contents

Page

Highlights .................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... v

Foreword ................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables............................................................................................................viii

List of Figures............................................................................................................ ix

Introduction................................................................................................................ 1

Enrollment of Minority Students in Higher Education: 1980−1992 ........................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................. 8

Purpose and Data Sources........................................................................................ 9

Minority Students Included in the Analysis............................................................ 9

Citizenship .......................................................................................................... 11

Postsecondary Experiences of Minority Undergraduates: 1989−90....................... 13

Minority Students’ Enrollment and Educational Goals............................................ 16

Attendance at Historically Black Colleges and Universities..................................... 20

Reasons Students Reported for Choosing Their Institution ..................................... 22

Financial Aid.......................................................................................................... 24

Persistence Among 1989−90 Minority Students ..................................................... 26

Controlling for Factors Related to Persistence ........................................................ 29

Recent Changes in Persistence................................................................................ 33

Appendix A............................................................................................................... 36

Appendix B............................................................................................................... 47
viii

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Percentage distribution of students in the college-age population and the

percentage distribution according to participation and completion in

secondary and postsecondary education, by race–ethnicity: 1990....................... 8

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their age, by

race–ethnicity: 1989–90 .................................................................................. 14

3 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their family income

percentile rankings, by race–ethnicity: 1989–90............................................... 15

4 Percentage of undergraduates, by gender and race–ethnicity: 1989–90 ............ 16

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduate enrollment, according to control of

institution, and by race–ethnicity: 1989–90...................................................... 17

6 Percentage distribution of undergraduate enrollment according to highest level

of institutional offering, and by race–ethnicity: 1989–90.................................. 18

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduates’ major field of study, by race–

.......................................................................................... 19

8 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their current degree

objectives and their ultimate educational aspirations, by race–ethnicity:

......................................................................................................... 20

9 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in historically black colleges or

universities (HBCU) and the distribution of students, by race–ethnicity:

......................................................................................................... 21

10 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in 4-year institutions

according to their educational aspirations, by their enrollment in historically

black colleges and universities (HBCU): 1989–90 ........................................... 22

11 Percentage of undergraduates who reported various reasons for choosing

their postsecondary institution as somewhat or very important, by

race–ethnicity: 1989–90 .................................................................................. 23

12 Percentage of undergraduates receiving financial aid and the amounts

received, by race–ethnicity: 1989–90............................................................... 25

13 Percentage of 1989−90 beginning postsecondary students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree who were continuously enrolled through May 1992,

and the adjusted percentage taking into account the covariation of variables

listed in the table ............................................................................................. 33
ix

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Percentage distribution of all students enrolled in higher education by

race–ethnicity: Fall 1980–92 ............................................................................. 3

2 Percentage distribution of all male students enrolled in higher education by

race–ethnicity: Fall 1980–92 ............................................................................. 4

3 Percentage distribution of all female students enrolled in higher education by

race–ethnicity: Fall 1980–92 ............................................................................. 5

4 Percentage distribution of all students enrolled in 4-year institutions of higher

education by race–ethnicity: Fall 1980–92......................................................... 6

5 Percentage distribution of all students enrolled in 2-year institutions of higher

education by race–ethnicity: Fall 1980–92......................................................... 7

6 Percentage distribution of Hispanic and Asian students, according to their

ethnic identity: 1989–90.................................................................................. 12

7 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who reported a

bachelor’s degree as their current degree goal, according to their persistence

status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity....................................................... 27

8 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary status who reported an

associate’s degree as their current degree goal, according to their persistence

status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity....................................................... 28

9 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who reported a

vocational certificate as their current educational goal, according to their

persistence status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity..................................... 30

10 Percentage of 1982–83 and 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who

initially enrolled in a 4-year institution the fall after their high school

graduation, who were still enrolled in May three years later............................. 35
1

Introduction

The transition of the American economy away from manufacturing toward high

technology and service industries has made postsecondary education a virtual prerequisite

for economic and social advancement. Currently, it is estimated that about 20 percent of

all available job openings require 4 years or more of college, and the U.S. Department of

Labor estimates the proportion will be 27 percent by the year 2000.1

At the same time, there have been dramatic shifts in the nation’s demographic

profile as non-white and Hispanic populations are becoming an ever larger proportion of

the college-age population. The U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates that by the year

2000, nearly one-third of the entire school-age population (5–24 years old) will be nonwhite or Hispanic.2 Furthermore, by the end of this century, about 40 percent of the

nation’s work force will be immigrants who arrived after 1980 (or their descendants).3 The

Population Reference Bureau projects that about half of all Americans will be Hispanic,

Asian, or black by the year 2080 if current trends continue.4

Concurrent with increasing proportions of minorities in the school-age population

has been a decline in the overall college-age population and, thus, in the number of entrylevel workers. This shrinking entry-level labor force offers minorities opportunities for

advancement provided postsecondary education institutions offer adequate training to

meet the demand.5

Enrollment of Minority Students in Higher Education: 1980–1992

After a dramatic increase in minority enrollment in the 1960s and 1970s, there was

uneven progress made in the decade between 1980 and 1990 (figure 1).6 For example, the

proportion of black, non-Hispanic students enrolled in institutions of higher education

changed little between 1980 and 1990, ranging from 9.2 percent of the higher education

population in 1980 to 8.7 percent in 1988, and rising once again to 8.9 percent in 1990. It

is encouraging to note, however, that the share of black, non-Hispanic students increased

 

1U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “BLS Previews the Economy of the Year 2000,”

1987.

2U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1986, cited in The Road to College: Educational Progress by Race and

Ethnicity, a joint publication of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and The College

Board (Boulder, CO: 1991).

3Cited in “A Difference of Degrees: State Initiatives to Improve Minority Student Achievement,” (Denver,

CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, 1987); 17.

4

Ibid.

5

Ibid.

6For a detailed review of minority enrollment, attrition, and completion in higher education, see D.J.

Carter and R.W. Wilson, Minorities in Higher Education: 12th Annual Status Report (Washington, DC:

American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education, 1993).
2

to 9.6 percent in 1992. This recent increase in enrollment was noted for both black, nonHispanic males (7.6 to 8.2 percent) and females (10.0 to 10.8 percent) (figures 2 and 3).7

American Indians/Alaskan Natives also experienced little growth in enrollment in

the 1980s; however, like black, non-Hispanic students, their enrollment rose between 1990

and 1992, from 103,000 students to 119,000, representing an increase of 0.1 percent in

their proportions among all students in higher education (0.7 to 0.8 percent). Hispanic and

Asian/Pacific Islander students, on the other hand, experienced more continual growth in

enrollment over the 12-year period between 1980 and 1992. Asian/Pacific Islander

students doubled their enrollment rate from 2.4 percent in 1980 to 4.8 percent of the total

higher education population in 1992; during the same period, Hispanics increased their

enrollment rates from 3.9 to 6.6. In contrast to Asians/Pacific Islanders, however,

Hispanics were more heavily concentrated in 2-year institutions than in 4-year institutions

(9.5 percent compared with 4.7 percent) (figures 4 and 5).8

Even though minorities constitute an increasing proportion of college students,

they are still underrepresented in postsecondary education (table 1). In 1990, for example,

nearly 29 percent of the population aged 18−24 were non-white or Hispanic, whereas

about 23 percent were enrolled in higher education in the same year. Minority

representation further declined with respect to degree attainment in the same year: 18

percent of associate’s degree recipients and 16 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients

were non-white or Hispanic students. Lower levels of attainment for American Indians/

Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic black students were especially apparent

when compared with their non-Hispanic white peers.9 For example, while black, nonHispanic students made up about 14 percent of the population aged 18−24 in 1990, they

accounted for about 10 percent of those enrolled in higher education, 8 percent of

associate’s degree recipients, and 6 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients. White, nonHispanic students, on the other hand, represented 72 percent of the population aged

18-24, 78 percent of higher education enrollment, 82 percent of associate’s degree

recipients, and 84 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients.

 

7U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Enrollment in Higher

Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category: Fall 1982 through Fall 1992 (Washington, DC: 1994).

8

Ibid.

9One exception is the American Indian/Alaskan Native representation in associate degree attainment,

which appears to be similar to the population aged 18−24.
3

Figure 1—Percentage distribution of all students enrolled in higher education by

race–ethnicity, fall 1980–92

Year

Percent

0%

10%

20%

90%

100%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

AmericanIndian or Nonresident alien

Alaskan Native

Asian or Pacific

Islander

White, non- Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.8

Black, non-Hispanic 9.2 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.9 9.6

Hispanic 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.9 5.2 5.5 6.6

White, non-Hispanic 81.4 80.7 80.2 79.3 78.8 77.9 75.0

Nonresident alien 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Racial/Ethnic

Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1980 through Fall 1990 (NCES 92-024) and Trends in Enrollment in Higher

Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category: Fall 1982 through Fall 1992 (NCES 94-104); based on Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) “Fall Enrollment” surveys.
4

Figure 2—Percentage distribution of all male students enrolled in higher education

by race–ethnicity, fall 1980–92

0%

10%

20%

90%

100%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

Year

Percent

AmericanIndian or Nonresident alien

Alaskan Native

Asian or Pacific

Islander

White, non- Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.6 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.6 5.4

Black, non-Hispanic 7.9 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.6 8.2

Hispanic 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.9 5.2 5.5 6.5

White, non-Hispanic 81.3 80.5 80.0 79.0 78.6 77.6 74.8

Nonresident alien 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Racial/Ethnic

Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1980 through Fall 1990 (NCES 92-024) and Trends in Enrollment in Higher

Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category: Fall 1982 through Fall 1992 (NCES 94-104); based on Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) “Fall Enrollment” surveys.
5

Figure 3—Percentage distribution of all female students enrolled in higher

education by race–ethnicity, fall 1980–92

Year

Percent

0%

10%

20%

90%

100%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

AmericanIndian or Nonresident alien

Alaskan Native

Asian or Pacific

Islander

White, non- Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.6 4.3

Black, non-Hispanic 10.3 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.8

Hispanic 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.0 5.3 5.5 6.6

White, non-Hispanic 81.4 80.9 80.4 79.7 79.1 78.1 75.2

Nonresident alien 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Racial/Ethnic

Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1980 through Fall 1990 (NCES 92-024) and Trends in Enrollment in Higher

Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category: Fall 1982 through Fall 1992 (NCES 94-104); based on Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) “Fall Enrollment” surveys.
6

Figure 4—Percentage distribution of all students enrolled in 4-year institutions of

higher education by race–ethnicity, fall 1980–92

Year

Percent

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

95%

100%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

AmericanIndian or Nonresident alien

Alaskan Native

Asian or Pacific

Islander

White, non- Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

American Indian/

Alaskan Native 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.7

Black, non-Hispanic 8.4 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.4 9.0

Hispanic 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.7

White, non-Hispanic 82.9 82.5 81.7 81.0 80.5 79.2 77.0

Nonresident alien 3.2 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 4.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Racial/Ethnic

Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1980 through Fall 1990 (NCES 92-024) and Trends in Enrollment in Higher

Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category: Fall 1982 through Fall 1992 (NCES 94-104); based on Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) “Fall Enrollment” surveys.
7

Figure 5—Percentage distribution of all students enrolled in 2-year institutions of

higher education by race–ethnicity, fall 1980–92

Year

Percent

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

95%

100%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92

AmericanIndian or Nonresident alien

Alaskan Native

Asian or Pacific

Islander

White, non- Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Hispanic

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

American Indian/

Alaskan Native 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1

Asian or Pacific Islander 2.7 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.1 5.0

Black, non-Hispanic 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0 9.7 9.8 10.5

Hispanic 5.6 6.1 6.4 7.3 7.9 8.0 9.5

White, non-Hispanic 78.7 77.9 77.6 76.6 76.0 75.6 72.0

Nonresident alien 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Racial/Ethnic

Enrollment in Higher Education: Fall 1980 through Fall 1990 (NCES 92-024) and Trends in Enrollment in Higher

Education, by Racial/Ethnic Category: Fall 1982 through Fall 1992 (NCES 94-104); based on Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) “Fall Enrollment” surveys.
8

Table 1Percentage distribution of students in the college-age population and the

percentage distribution according to participation and completion in

secondary and postsecondary education, by race-ethnicity: 1990

Population 1990 Enrolled Completed Completed

aged high school in higher associate’s bachelor’s

18−24 graduates education degree degree

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.4

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.7 3.3 4.2 3.0 3.7

Black, non-Hispanic 13.9 14.1 9.6 7.8 5.8

Hispanic 11.1 5.1 6.1 4.9 3.1

White, non-Hispanic 71.5 77.0 77.5 82.1 84.3

Nonresident alien   1.8 1.4 2.5

Noncitizens not presented separately.

SOURCE: Percentage of population 18–24 and 1990 high school graduates: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau

of Census, Current Population Survey, October 1990; Enrollment and degree completion: U.S. Department of

Education, Digest of Education Statistics, 1993, based on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

“Fall Enrollment and Completion” surveys, 1989–90.

Background

In recent years, a number of researchers have examined the attrition of minority

students in postsecondary education.10 This research has identified academic background

and high school preparationin particular, students’ grade point average, study habits,

and high school curriculaas factors that have the most impact on students’ progress in

postsecondary education.11 As one would expect, background characteristics associated

with socioeconomic status are also strongly related to college persistence: minority

students whose parents are better educated and have higher incomes are more likely to

succeed than those whose parents are less educated or have lower incomes.12

This research has also identified a number of college environmental factors that

bear a strong relationship to attrition. For example, initial enrollment in a community

college reduces students’ chances of attaining a bachelor’s degree,13 while enrollment in a

 

10See, for example, Astin et al., Minorities in American Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1988), and D.J. Jones and B.C. Watson, “High Risk” Students in Higher Education, ASHE-ERIC Higher

Education Reports (Washington, DC: 1990). It should be noted that Asian American/Pacific Islander

undergraduates as a group have the highest persistence and attainment rates compared with other

racial−ethnic groups. However, variation according to national origin is likely.

11Astin et al., 180−181.

12Ibid., and Jones and Watson, 10.

13It should be noted that students may enter community colleges without intending to attain a degree, but

simply to improve skills or enhance career opportunities. Furthermore, other factors related to enrolling in

a community college instead of a 4-year college may be indirectly related to lower degree attainment, such

as a lack of financial resources.
9

4-year college or university enhances their persistence. These studies have also

emphasized the important role of financial factors in the persistence of minority students.

For instance, working full time while attending school tends to reduce minority students’

persistence to a bachelor’s degree, while the receipt of financial aid in the form of grants

or scholarships positively influences persistence.14 Finally, researchers have found that

students who live away from home while attending college are more likely to persist than

those who live at home with their parents. This was found to be especially true for black,

non-Hispanic and Hispanic students.15

Purpose and Data Sources

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information concerning minority

student participation in postsecondary education based on data from the National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90) and its longitudinal component, Beginning

Postsecondary Students (BPS:90/92). The NPSAS data were used to examine in detail the

types of institutions undergraduates attended; their degree program and educational

aspirations; their reasons for choosing the postsecondary institutions they attended; and

the primary means of financing their education. In addition, NPSAS is large enough to

provide estimates of specific Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic subgroups. Thus, data for

these subgroups are presented separately.

A longitudinal cohort of NPSAS:93 undergraduates who were enrolled in

postsecondary education for the first time in 1989−90 were followed up in 1992

(BPS:90/92). For these students, attainment rates for some sub-baccalaureate awards and

interim persistence rates for students in bachelor’s degree programs were available as of

spring 1992. For students who did not interrupt their education, this would be the second

term of their third academic year. Some students, however, were not continuously

enrolled; they had interrupted their education and subsequently returned. In the case of

students pursuing a bachelor’s degree, the percentage of students who interrupted and

reenrolled is presented.

Minority Students Included in the Analysis

In education survey research, non-white racial–ethnic groups are often compared

in the aggregate with white, non-Hispanic students because the sample sizes of minority

subgroups are too small to produce reliable estimates. Thus, these analyses fail to

illuminate differences not only among different minority groups but also within aggregated

ethnic groups, such as Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders. The size of the NPSAS

survey (about 40,000 undergraduates) is large enough to provide at least an overall

snapshot of these main groups, as well as the specific Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic

subgroups. In the survey, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic students were asked for

 

14See also, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Undergraduates Who

Work While Enrolled in Postsecondary Education (Washington, DC: 1994).

15Astin, et. al., 183.
10

their specific subgroup identity.16 However, those who chose not to identify themselves,

those belonging to groups too small to be disaggregated, or students of mixed identity

were categorized as “other/non-specified” (figure 6). These “other” groups were largest

among both Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander subgroups, illustrating the diversity of

their origins.

Throughout the remainder of this report, minority student groups are identified as

follows. The specific terms and definitions for each minority group were designated by the

Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy directive (No. 15, May 12, 1977).

American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal

affiliation or community recognition. For accuracy and consistency with previously

published data, the term American Indian/Alaskan Native is used to identify these

students, recognizing that the term Native American is sometimes preferred. American

Indian/Alaskan Native students are a particularly small group of undergraduates. Because

of their small sample size, some estimates of participation and all estimates of persistence

in postsecondary education could not be reported.17

Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the Pacific Islander

original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or Pacific

Islands. This includes peoples from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa,

India, and Vietnam. In addition, the NPSAS data provide estimates for subgroups

including Asian Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Pacific Islander (Filipino, Hawaiian,

Samoan, and Guamanian), and Vietnamese. A group called “other” includes those from

other origins and those who did not specify their ethnic group. Like the American

Indian/Alaskan Native undergraduate population, each of these Asian subgroups is very

small, and some estimates could not be reported. In addition, some differences in estimates

between subgroups may appear large, but they are often not statistically significant. Only

differences that are statistically significant are discussed in this report.

Black, non-Hispanic. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin. While the terms African American, Black American, or

Person of Color are often preferred, to preserve consistency with previously published

education data and for accuracy, the term black, non-Hispanic is used in this report.

 

16In the survey, students were first asked their race (white, black, American Indian/Alaskan Native,

Asian/Pacific Islander, or other); If they indicated “other,” they were then asked if they were of

Spanish/Hispanic origin. Those who indicated Spanish/Hispanic origin were asked to identify themselves

as Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano; Cuban; Puerto Rican; or to specify their origin if they were other

than these three groups. Similarly, American Indians/Alaskan Natives were asked to specify their tribe,

and Asians were asked if they were Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian

Indian, Samoan, or Guamanian, or to specify their subgroup if they were not one of these ethnicities.

However, students were not given the specific definitions of each group.

17Estimates based on samples of fewer than 30 students cannot be reported.
11

Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American,

or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Again, to preserve data reporting

consistency, the term Hispanic is used in this report, with the recognition that Latino as a

generic term for all people of Latin American/Spanish origin may be preferred. The

NPSAS data also provide estimates for subgroups including Mexican American, Puerto

Rican, and Cuban American students. A group called “other” includes those of other

Hispanic origins and those who did not specify their ethnic group.

White, non-Hispanic. For comparisons with minority groups, estimates for white,

non-Hispanic undergraduates are also presented. These are students with origins in any of

the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic

origin).

Citizenship

The results presented in the remainder of this report include all noncitizens, who

account for about 5 percent of undergraduates. The non-citizens are primarily Asian/

Pacific Islander (39 percent) and Hispanic (17 percent). However, most of these

noncitizens are permanent residents or are eligible for financial aid as individuals in the

country for “other than a temporary purpose,” including refugees, persons granted asylum,

and so on. (See The Federal Student Financial Aid Handbook for a more detailed

description of these students).18 Therefore, given their relatively permanent status in this

country, all noncitizens were included in the analysis. Thus, there are some instances

where minority groups are referred to as American (such as Mexican American), which

may include a small percentage of noncitizens.

 

18Approximately 3 percent of Hispanic undergraduates and 12 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders are

neither permanent residents nor eligible for financial aid. For further information, see U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Financing Undergraduate Education: 1990

(Washington, DC: 1993).
12

Figure 6—Percentage distribution of Hispanic and Asian students, by their ethnic

identity: 1989–90

37.4%

8.5%

14.7%

7.4%

10.0%

16.5%

5.2%

34.5%

2.6%

55.0%

7.7%

Cuban

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Other

Asian Indian

Chinese

Japanese

Korean

Pacific Islander

Vietnamese

Other

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Survey (NPSAS:90), Data Analysis System.
13

Postsecondary Experiences of Minority Undergraduates:

1989–90

In the last 20 years, the proportion of so-called nontraditional students in

postsecondary education has increased dramatically.19 This is especially true for older

students who for various reasons delayed their entry into college or other postsecondary

education programs.20 Students who delay their postsecondary education are more at risk

of not completing a credential than those who have followed a more traditional

educational path.21 Given this association between delayed entry and attainment, it may

not be surprising that Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduates, who have higher college

completion rates than other students, tended to be younger (thus, less likely to have

delayed their college entry), while black, non-Hispanic and American Indian/Alaskan

Native students tended to be older (table 2). About two-thirds of Asian/Pacific Islander

students (63 percent), compared with about one-half of black, non-Hispanic students (52

percent) were 23 or younger. By contrast, 36 percent of American Indian/Alaskan Natives

and 28 percent of black, non-Hispanic students were age 30 or older, compared with 18

percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students.

Many members of minority groups, especially Vietnamese and Puerto Ricans, are

economically disadvantaged. In 1989–90, undergraduates in all racial–ethnic minority

groups were less well off financially than were their white, non-Hispanic peers (table 3).

Approximately one-third or more of minority students (30 percent of American Indians/

Alaskan Natives, 35 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders, 39 percent of Hispanics, and 41

percent of black, non-Hispanic students) were in the lowest family income quartile,

compared with about one-fifth of white, non-Hispanic students.22

In addition, the income distribution within Hispanic and Asian subgroups varied.

For example, Cuban Americans (8 percent of all Hispanics) were substantially more

affluent than other Hispanic groups: about 37 percent were in the highest income quartile,

compared with about 16 percent of either Mexican Americans or Puerto Ricans. When

Asian/Pacific Islander ethnic groups were disaggregated, Vietnamese students were found

to be among the poorest enrolled, with about two-thirds (68 percent) having incomes at or

below the 25th percentile.

 

19D.J. Jones and B.C. Watson, “High Risk” Students in Higher Education, ASHE-ERIC Higher

Education Reports (Washington, DC: 1990).

20U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Profile of Older Students in

Postsecondary Education (Washington, DC: 1995).

21U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond, 1992

Descriptive Summary of 1980 High School Sophomores (Washington, DC: 1995).

22The income quartiles are based on the NPSAS undergraduate income distribution, not the general

population.
14

Table 2Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their age by race–

ethnicity: 1989−90

 Age as of 12/31/89 

23 or 30 or

younger 24–29 older

Total 57.6 16.7 25.5

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 52.7 11.5 35.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 63.1 18.5 18.3

Black, non-Hispanic 51.9 20.2 27.8

Hispanic 59.5 19.4 21.0

White, non-Hispanic 57.9 15.9 26.1

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 71.0 12.7 16.2

Chinese 60.8 22.1 17.0

Japanese 60.9 19.3 19.6

Korean 83.6 12.2 4.0

Pacific Islander 55.1 19.7 25.0

Vietnamese 74.9 12.7 12.3

Other or non-specified 59.8 19.6 20.4

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 61.2 26.3 12.3

Mexican 60.4 17.7 21.8

Puerto Rican 60.4 17.6 21.9

Other or nonspecified 58.7 20.5 20.7

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
15

Table 3Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their family income

percentile rankings by race–ethnicity: 1989−90

 Total family income, 1988 percentile rank 

25th or 76th or

lower 26th−75th higher

Total 24.9 49.9 25.0

Race−ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 30.2 52.8 16.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 34.5 42.4 23.0

Black, non-Hispanic 40.5 47.5 11.9

Hispanic 39.2 46.8 13.9

White, non-Hispanic 20.6 51.0 28.2

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 33.4 34.8 31.6

Chinese 37.0 35.0 27.9

Japanese 19.8 43.4 36.6

Korean 24.8 47.4 27.7

Pacific Islander 20.0 54.9 25.0

Vietnamese 68.3 24.4 7.2

Other or nonspecified 37.3 44.7 17.8

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 17.3 45.6 37.0

Mexican 32.3 51.1 16.4

Puerto Rican 42.9 40.4 16.6

Other or nonspecified 44.2 45.0 10.7

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

In 1989−90, men and women enrolled in postsecondary education at different

rates, and there was also variation in the gender distribution among racial−ethnic groups.

For example, 55 percent of all undergraduates and two-thirds of black, non-Hispanic

students were female (table 4). To a lesser extent, Hispanic students were also more likely

to be female (53 compared with 47 percent). On the other hand, there was no significant

difference in the proportion of males and females enrolled for either Asians/Pacific

Islanders or American Indians/Alaskan Natives.23

 

23While it appears as though more males than females were enrolled for these two groups, the difference

is not statistically significant.
16

Table 4Percentage distribution of undergraduates by gender and race–ethnicity:

1989−90

Male Female

Total 44.6 55.4

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 52.0 47.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 51.9 48.0

Black, non-Hispanic 36.7 63.3

Hispanic 46.9 53.0

White, non-Hispanic 44.8 55.1

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 53.8 46.1

Chinese 50.4 49.6

Japanese 41.3 58.6

Korean 52.3 47.7

Pacific Islander 54.0 45.9

Vietnamese 58.7 41.2

Other or nonspecified 52.7 47.2

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 61.5 38.4

Mexican 46.8 53.1

Puerto Rican 44.0 55.9

Other or nonspecified 46.6 53.3

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Minority Students’ Enrollment and Educational Goals

One of the more striking differences among minority groups with respect to their

enrollment in 1989–90 was the tendency of black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic students to

attend private, for-profit institutions (table 5). About 20 percent of black, non-Hispanic

students and 15 percent of Hispanic students were enrolled in such institutions, compared

with 5 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders and 6 percent of white, non-Hispanic students.

Private, for-profit institutions typically offer programs of short duration leading to a

vocational certificate in fields such as cosmetology; administrative and secretarial

programs; health-related programs such as physician assistant and practical nursing; and

trade and industry programs leading to such jobs as mechanics and repairers.
17

Table 5Percentage distribution of undergraduate enrollment according to control of

institution, by race–ethnicity: 1989−90

Private, Private,

Public not-for-profit for-profit

Total 75.6 15.7 8.5

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 78.3 10.3 11.2

Asian/Pacific Islander 81.2 13.4 5.3

Black, non-Hispanic 68.1 12.0 19.8

Hispanic 68.1 16.5 15.3

White, non-Hispanic 77.1 16.4 6.4

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 76.3 21.3 2.3

Chinese 82.6 14.4 2.9

Japanese 88.7 9.6 1.5

Korean 77.4 20.6 1.9

Pacific Islander 86.1 8.9 4.8

Vietnamese 86.5 11.8 1.6

Other or nonspecified 76.8 13.6 9.5

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 77.7 16.1 6.1

Mexican 85.7 5.5 8.7

Puerto Rican 55.2 30.5 14.2

Other or nonspecified 58.4 21.5 20.0

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

In contrast, black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and American Indian/Alaskan Native

students were less likely to be enrolled in 4-year colleges or universities than were white,

non-Hispanic students (table 6). In addition, black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic students

who did attend colleges and universities were less likely than Asian/Pacific Islander

students to be in fields with greater economic returns, such as science and engineering

(table 7).

Among Hispanic ethnic groups, there were also differences in the types of

institutions students attended (table 6). For example, two-thirds of Mexican Americans

were enrolled in 2-year institutions (most of which are public community colleges),

whereas the majority of Puerto Ricans (65 percent) were enrolled in 4-year colleges or

universities. Cuban American students, on the other hand, were more evenly distributed in

their enrollment at 2-year and 4-year institutions (49 and 48 percent, respectively).
18

Table 6Percentage distribution of undergraduate enrollment according to highest

level of institutional offering, and by race–ethnicity: 1989−90

Less-than-2-year 2-year 4-year

Total 7.5 45.5 46.9

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 9.3 57.2 33.3

Asian/Pacific Islander 4.1 49.2 46.5

Black, non-Hispanic 17.0 45.1 37.8

Hispanic 15.2 47.3 37.3

White, non-Hispanic 5.5 45.0 49.3

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 1.3 39.0 59.6

Chinese 1.8 44.3 53.7

Japanese 0.6 51.5 47.7

Korean 1.4 38.4 60.1

Pacific Islander 3.0 61.4 35.4

Vietnamese 1.3 53.9 44.7

Other or nonspecified 8.1 48.5 43.3

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 2.5 49.1 48.2

Mexican 7.4 65.5 26.9

Puerto Rican 10.8 23.8 65.3

Other or nonspecified 21.4 39.0 39.4

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Despite their concentration in sub-baccalaureate institutions, black, non-Hispanic

and Hispanic students were just as likely as white, non-Hispanic students to aspire to a

bachelor’s degree or to an advanced degree as their ultimate educational goal (table 8).

The same was true for American Indians/Alaskan Natives, 24 percent or whom were

enrolled in a baccalaureate program in 1989–90, compared with 40 percent of either

Asian/Pacific Islander or white, non-Hispanic students. But when asked what their

ultimate educational aspirations were, 37 percent of American Indians/Alaskan Natives

reported a bachelor’s degree, and 47 percent reported an advanced degree. These

aspirations were no different from those of white, non-Hispanic undergraduates.
19

Table 7Percentage distribution of undergraduates’ major field of study by

race−ethnicity: 1989−90

Math/

Humanities science/ Business Other

social engineering/ manage- Vocational/ technical

science computing Education ment Health technical prof.

Total 21.5 16.6 6.9 23.7 8.6 6.4 15.9

Race−ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 20.4 17.4 8.6 20.1 8.8 7.0 17.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 20.6 29.4 2.4 24.2 6.9 5.0 11.1

Black, non-Hispanic 14.2 14.6 4.1 28.4 8.9 7.7 21.9

Hispanic 17.8 18.4 6.2 25.9 6.3 8.5 16.7

White, non-Hispanic 23.0 15.9 7.7 22.8 9.0 6.0 15.2

Racial−ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 11.3 44.0 3.0 12.8 12.8 9.6 6.2

Chinese 19.5 42.7 0.8 20.3 4.1 1.0 11.3

Japanese 33.4 13.0 4.0 26.6 5.0 3.4 14.3

Korean 29.8 35.7 0.5 15.6 5.2 0.2 12.8

Pacific Islander 19.7 20.9 4.4 23.6 16.4 9.2 5.5

Vietnamese 16.9 36.5 1.8 31.6 5.4 1.0 6.5

Other or nonspecified 18.5 25.8 2.4 26.9 5.0 7.0 14.0

Racial−ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 38.3 15.9 1.0 24.5 5.8 1.1 13.0

Mexican 16.3 18.0 9.4 23.5 7.1 10.9 14.4

Puerto Rican 18.2 21.3 5.4 25.0 7.9 6.3 15.6

Other or nonspecified 17.7 18.3 4.7 27.4 5.7 7.7 18.2

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989−90 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
20

Table 8Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their current degree

objectives and their ultimate educational aspirations, by race–ethnicity:

1980−90

 1989–90 degree objective Educational aspirations 

Less than Bachelor’s Less than Bachelor’s Advanced

bachelor’s degree bachelor’s degree degree

Total 61.8 38.2 15.1 32.6 52.2

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 75.8 24.1 15.7 37.3 46.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 60.5 39.5 9.7 31.7 58.5

Black, non-Hispanic 69.6 30.4 16.2 29.9 53.7

Hispanic 68.8 31.3 18.0 31.8 50.0

White, non-Hispanic 59.9 40.1 15.0 33.0 51.9

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 62.8 37.2 4.2 16.2 79.4

Chinese 51.1 48.9 8.7 25.1 66.0

Japanese 61.1 38.9 10.2 35.8 53.9

Korean 49.0 51.0 0.4 23.7 75.7

Pacific Islander 68.8 31.2 13.9 43.5 42.5

Vietnamese 50.4 49.6 12.1 34.2 53.5

Other or nonspecified 62.7 37.3 11.3 32.5 56.1

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 59.2 40.8 7.5 11.4 81.0

Mexican 76.8 23.3 20.7 36.6 42.5

Puerto Rican 45.4 54.6 11.1 28.9 59.8

Other or nonspecified 67.5 32.5 17.6 28.0 54.3

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Attendance at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Historically black colleges and institutions were first established in the 1800s to

counter the practice of prohibiting the education of black persons.24 Their earliest

appearance was before the Civil War when almost all black persons were still slaves.

However, it was only after the Civil War and in the late 1800s that modest gains were

made in educational opportunities for minorities. During this time, Congress passed the

Second Morrill Act, which established a dual system of higher educationone for whites

and one for non-whites. All schools were run by white administrators until 1927, when

Mordecai Johnson was named Howard University’s first black president. At that time,

there were 77 HBCUs with about 14,000 students enrolled. Today there are 105 such

institutions enrolling approximately 258,000 students. Most HBCUs (about 90 percent)

are 4-year colleges, and about half are private, not-for-profit institutions.25

 

24For a comprehensive overview of HBCUs and enrollment changes in recent years see: U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Historically Black Colleges and Universities:

1976-1990, (Washington, DC: 1992).

25Ibid., 4.
21

Between 1986 and 1990, enrollment in HBCUs increased 15 percent, and

according to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) survey of

higher education institutions, about 17 percent of black, non-Hispanic students attended

HBCUs in the fall of 1990.26 While the overwhelming majority of students attending

HBCUs were black, non-Hispanic, about one-fourth came from other racial–ethnic

groups. Among the NPSAS:90 undergraduates attending HBCUs, for example, about 75

percent were black, non-Hispanic; 15 percent white, non-Hispanic; 7 percent Hispanic;

and less than 3 percent each were either Asian/Pacific Islander or American

Indian/Alaskan Native (table 9).

Table 9—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled in historically black colleges or

universities (HCBU) and the percentage distribution of students, by race–

ethnicity: 1989–90

 Attend HBCU 

Undergraduates in Percent

public or private, racial–ethnic

All not-for-profit distribution

undergraduates institutions in fall of 1990 attending HBCUs

Total 1.4 1.5 100.0

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 2.2 2.8 1.2

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.7 0.6 2.7

Black, non-Hispanic 11.7 14.1 74.7

Hispanic 1.1 1.4 6.5

White, non-Hispanic 0.2 0.2 14.9

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Students attending HBCUs reported somewhat higher educational aspirations than

those attending non-HBCUs. For example, among undergraduates enrolled in 4-year

colleges and universities, 77 percent of those attending HBCUs reported their educational

goal as an advanced degree, compared with 71 percent of students attending non-HBCUs

(table 10).

 

26Ibid., 6. Note that the NPSAS:90 survey is based on full-year enrollment and includes students in forprofit trade schools, leading one to expect that the overall proportion of black, non-Hispanic students in

the NPSAS sample who are enrolled in HBCUs would be somewhat lower than that in IPEDS. This was

in fact the case; about 12 percent of all black, non-Hispanic students enrolled in postsecondary education

were enrolled in HBCUs. However, if NPSAS:90 is limited to the fall sample of public and private, notfor-profit institutions, the percentage of black, non-Hispanic students is about 14 percent.
22

Table 10—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled in 4-year institutions

according to their educational aspirations, by their enrollment in

historically black colleges and universities (HBCU): 1989−90

Less than

bachelor’s Bachelor’s Advanced

degree degree degree

Total 2.3 27.0 70.6

Attend HBCU 2.5 20.4 77.1

Attend non-HBCU 2.3 27.2 70.6

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Reasons Students Reported for Choosing Their Institution

Regardless of racial–ethnic group, almost all undergraduates (two-thirds or more)

cited academic reasons (e.g., institution’s overall reputation, its reputation for placing

graduates, and its having the desired courses) as important factors in choosing their

institution. Differences among racial–ethnic groups did emerge, however, in the

proportion of students citing financially-related reasons for choosing their institutions

(table 11). For example, black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and Asian/Pacific Islander

undergraduates were all more likely to cite the opportunity for obtaining a job at school as

an important reason for their choice (34 to 38 percent) than were white, non-Hispanic

students (26 percent). While a majority of students reported that being able to work and

attend school was an important reason for their choice, Asians/Pacific Islanders were less

likely than black, non-Hispanic or Hispanic students to do so (65 percent compared with

75 percent and 78 percent, respectively). This is consistent with the finding that

Asian/Pacific Islander students are less likely to work while attending school than other

racial–ethnic groups.27

Corresponding in part to their lower incomes, black, non-Hispanic students were

the most likely to report that obtaining financial aid was an important reason for their

choice of institution (57 percent compared with 42 percent of Hispanics, 41 percent of

American Indians/Alaskan Natives, 38 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 33 percent

of white, non-Hispanics). Among Hispanic ethnic groups, a greater proportion of Puerto

Ricans cited the possibility of obtaining financial aid as an important reason for their

choice of institution than did either Mexican or Cuban American students (64 percent

compared with 40 percent and 32 percent, respectively). The difference between Puerto

Rican and Mexican American students may be due to Puerto Ricans’ greater likelihood of

attending higher cost 4-year institutions, whereas Mexican Americans were more likely to

be enrolled in 2-year institutions.

 

27U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Undergraduates Who Work

While Enrolled in Postsecondary Education (Washington, DC: 1994).
23

Table 11Percentage of undergraduates who reported various reasons for choosing

their postsecondary institution as somewhat or very important, by race–

ethnicity: 1989−90

Good Better Can Can Got

reputation Good Offered chance attend graduate financial Can

placing reputation courses getting job school in shorter aid live at Friends

graduates of school wanted at school & work time needed home attended

Total 65.9 83.2 91.9 28.4 71.1 56.7 35.8 62.1 22.1

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 67.1 89.6 91.1 35.8 77.1 53.3 41.4 63.5 21.7

Asian/Pacific Islander 67.7 79.8 88.8 37.4 65.1 60.8 37.7 65.1 32.8

Black, non-Hispanic 69.3 82.8 93.3 38.3 75.4 64.1 56.6 66.9 18.8

Hispanic 70.4 82.2 91.6 34.1 77.7 62.5 42.3 73.1 24.4

White, non-Hispanic 65.0 83.4 91.9 26.1 70.3 55.1 32.8 60.3 21.6

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 68.8 80.0 81.9 25.6 49.5 47.2 34.4 65.7 23.0

Chinese 67.8 78.4 93.7 38.7 52.4 57.7 36.1 60.3 31.3

Japanese 58.0 71.6 87.6 27.3 52.3 49.3 14.0 64.3 33.1

Korean 70.6 86.0 82.6 41.0 65.4 61.7 38.7 51.3 26.2

Pacific Islander 67.1 83.7 91.1 34.7 82.5 68.6 36.9 82.7 38.4

Vietnamese 72.6 78.6 92.5 63.3 76.4 65.6 66.2 64.3 34.5

Other or nonspecified 69.6 80.6 85.6 33.4 69.2 65.3 40.2 61.1 34.6

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 62.6 76.0 83.3 35.5 64.2 47.3 32.1 69.3 15.4

Mexican 67.8 79.8 91.4 33.0 81.0 63.6 40.4 73.3 27.6

Puerto Rican 80.4 85.4 94.5 38.5 67.8 62.3 63.7 75.8 21.8

Other or nonspecified 71.7 85.4 91.8 34.0 77.7 62.8 39.4 72.5 21.6

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Finishing their postsecondary education in a short amount of time was especially

important to Hispanic and black, non-Hispanic students, which is consistent with their

higher attendance at less-than-2-year institutions: about two-thirds of black, non-Hispanic

and Hispanic students as reported this an important factor in choosing their school, as

compared with 55 percent of white, non-Hispanic students.

Finally, the importance of living at home while attending school, the reason for

which may be financial and/or cultural, distinguished Hispanics from Asians/Pacific

Islanders and white, non-Hispanic students: about three-fourths (73 percent) of Hispanics

cited this as an important reason for their school choice, as compared with 65 percent of

Asians/Pacific Islanders and 60 percent of white, non-Hispanic students.28 Asian/Pacific

Islander students, on the other hand, were much more likely to cite having friends who

 

28The percentage of Hispanic students is not significantly different from that of black, non-Hispanic

students (67 percent).
24

attend the same institution as an important factor for their school choice, compared with

Hispanic; black, non-Hispanic; or white, non-Hispanic students (33 percent compared with

19 to 24 percent).

Financial Aid

The receipt of financial aid is determined by family income, school costs, and

whether or not a student is financially dependent on his or her parents. Thus, differences in

the receipt and amounts of aid among racial ethnic groups are due to differences in these

determinants of financial aid. (Differences in loan aid may also depend on students’

willingness to borrow.) However, given their overall lower incomes, the receipt of

financial aid may disproportionately affect minority students’ access to and persistence in

postsecondary education when compared with their white, non-Hispanic counterparts who

have greater financial resources.29

Consistent with their lower incomes, black, non-Hispanic students were more

likely to get financial aid than any other racial–ethnic group, with the exception of

American Indians/Alaskan Natives: about 60 percent of black, non-Hispanic

undergraduates, compared with 50 percent, 36 percent, and 40 percent of Hispanic;

Asian/Pacific Islander; and white, non-Hispanic students, respectively (table 12).30

Hispanics were, in turn, more likely to get aid than were either Asian/Pacific Islander or

white, non-Hispanic students.

Similar differences were seen for both grant and loan aid receipt: a greater

percentage of black, non-Hispanic students received grants (53 percent) than did

Hispanics (44 percent), Asians/Pacific Islanders (31 percent), or white, non-Hispanic

students (33 percent). Likewise, nearly one-third (29 percent) of black, non-Hispanic

students received loans, compared with 19 percent of Hispanics, 14 percent of

Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 18 percent of white, non-Hispanic students.

Differences in the receipt of aid were also noted among Asian and Hispanic

subgroups, which for the most part corresponded to the different income levels of these

students. For example, about 40 percent of all Asian/Pacific Islander students received aid;

however, Vietnamese students were more likely to receive financial aid (58 percent) than

many other Asian ethnic groups including Japanese, Chinese, and Pacific Islander students.

Among Hispanic subgroups, Puerto Ricans were nearly twice as likely to receive

aid (63 percent) than were Mexican Americans (34 percent), even though these two ethnic

groups differed little in their distribution among income levels (see table 9). The difference

 

29A forthcoming NCES report, (How Low-Income Students Finance Their Education), examines in detail

the relationship between financial aid and the postsecondary education experiences of low-income

students.

30About one-half of American Indians/Alaskan Natives received aid, which was not statistically different

from any other group.
25

in aid receipt is probably due to Puerto Ricans’ propensity to be enrolled in higher cost 4-

year institutions, compared with Mexican Americans’ likelihood to be enrolled in

community colleges.

Table 12Percentage of undergraduates receiving financial aid and the amounts

received, by race–ethnicity: 1989−90

Any aid Grant aid Loan aid Total aid Total grant Total loan

received received received amount amount amount

Total 42.8 36.2 18.7 $3,605 $2,257 $2,799

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 50.9 45.6 15.3 3,827 2,495 3,189

Asian/Pacific Islander 35.7 31.0 14.0 4,381 2,952 2,968

Black, non-Hispanic 60.2 53.0 28.9 3,787 2,419 2,698

Hispanic 49.8 43.8 19.0 3,466 2,332 2,818

White, non-Hispanic 40.0 33.3 17.7 3,541 2,168 2,807

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 42.6 37.5 12.5 3,837 2,852 3,149

Chinese 30.8 27.1 10.1 4,376 3,191 3,065

Japanese 12.2 9.9 4.1 3,447 2,213 

Korean 43.1 36.4 24.3 5,949 4,043 2,880

Pacific Islander 24.4 21.0 10.0 3,662 2,185 3,200

Vietnamese 58.0 57.1 21.8 4,806 3,308 2,339

Other or nonspecific 41.2 34.3 16.4 4,240 2,761 3,145

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 46.3 42.0 11.6 2,996 2,327 

Mexican 34.1 28.7 16.2 3,705 2,122 2,984

Puerto Rican 62.6 58.9 22.3 3,527 2,445 2,551

Other or nonspecific 58.1 51.3 20.6 3,388 2,388 2,786

Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
26

Persistence Among 1989−90 Minority Students

For students who first began their postsecondary education in 1989–90, nearly

one-half (45 percent) reported that their current degree objective was a bachelor’s degree,

while 27 percent were seeking an associate’s degree. Approximately 15 percent had

relatively short-term educational objectives and reported pursuing a vocational

certificate.31 Since the length of time required to complete these three programs is so

different (for example, a vocational certificate is often earned in less than one year), the

persistence rates for these three groups are presented separately.

Consistent with historical trends, persistence rates for students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree tended to be higher for Asian/Pacific Islander students than for Hispanic

and black, non-Hispanic students (figure 7).32 For example, 69 percent of Asian/Pacific

Islander students were continuously enrolled through the spring of 1992, compared with

46 percent of Hispanic students and 50 percent of black, non-Hispanic students.33 On the

other hand, persistence for white, non-Hispanic students (58 percent) was not significantly

different from any other group.

Despite the fact that an associate’s degree is traditionally viewed as a 2-year

program, among undergraduates pursuing an associate’s degree, only about 12 percent of

beginning postsecondary students seeking such a degree had actually completed it after

nearly 3 years. This result reflects the tendency of these students to attend community

colleges on a part-time basis (figure 8).34 For students who completed their degree, the

differences in completion rates among Hispanic; black, non-Hispanic; and white, nonHispanic students were not statistically significant: 17 percent, 8 percent, and 13 percent,

respectively. (The sample of Asian/Pacific Islander students was not large enough for a

reliable estimate.) However, because of the extent of part-time enrollment in these

programs, many students were still enrolled at the end of their third year. This was

particularly true for Hispanic students who were less likely than black, non-Hispanic

students to have left school with no credential (28 percent compared with 53 percent) and

to have never reenrolled.

 

31These estimates were from the NCES BPS:90/92 Data Analysis System. Undergraduate degree goal is

based on students’ response to the question: “Toward which degree or other award are the courses you are

taking leading?” It was therefore possible for students to be working toward a degree that the institution

did not offer. (For example, a student could be attending a community college and pursuing a bachelor’s

degree.) Thus, this variable differs from “undergraduate program,” a variable representing the current

program in which the student is enrolled that is reported by the institution.

32The sample size of American Indians/Alaskan Natives was not large enough to provide reliable

estimates and is not included in this discussion.

33The difference between Asians/Pacific Islanders and black, non-Hispanic students is significant at

p ≤ 0.1.

34U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Descriptive Summary of

1989- 90 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Two Years Later (Washington, DC: 1994).
27

Figure 7—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who reported a

bachelor’s degree as their current degree objective, by their persistence

status as of Spring 1992, by race–ethnicity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

White, nonHispanicBlack, nonHispanicHispanic

19.3

23.3 27.7 17.8

11.8 26.3 26.2 24.4

Race-ethnicity

68.8 50.3 46.0 57.6

Asian or

Pacific Islander

Left school with no degree

Continuously enrolled*

Interrupted and re-enrolled

*Includes a small percentage (1.5%) who reported completing the degree.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey, first follow-up (1992).
28

Figure 8—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who reported

an associate’s degree as their current degree objective, by their

persistence status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Race-ethnicity

White, nonHispanicBlack, nonHispanicHispanic

52.8 28.4 47.1

39.2

54.9

40.0

7.8

16.6

12.7

Left school with no degree

Completed

Still enrolled or re-enrolled

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey, first follow-up (1992).
29

As might be expected, given the shorter time needed to complete a certificate,

students seeking a certificate were more likely to complete one by spring 1992 than those

pursuing an associate’s degree (figure 9). About 44 percent of black, non-Hispanic

students and 32 percent of Hispanic students seeking a certificate had completed. While

differences in completion and attrition among racial–ethnic groups were not statistically

significant, the sample for this group of students was very small, and it would be difficult

to detect differences that are actually present in the population.

Controlling for Factors Related to Persistence

Since racial–ethnic groups differ with respect to a number of background

characteristics as well as their postsecondary experiences in general, it is instructive to try

to control for some of these factors to see if the differences in persistence rates initially

observed among racial–ethnic groups change.35 Therefore, we estimated the joint effect of

a number of variables using a linear regression model.36 The regression coefficients were

subsequently used to adjust the estimate for the proportion of students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree who were continuously enrolled through spring 1992.

The independent variables initially included in the model were race–ethnicity (with

white, non-Hispanic students serving as the comparison group); gender; income (family

income if the student is dependent and student income if the student is independent); age;

marital status; parents’ highest education; single parent status; type of high school

credential (diploma, GED, none); intensity of attendance (full-time for a full-year or less);

the number of hours worked while enrolled; the amount of financial aid received; whether

students entered postsecondary education immediately after high school graduation;37 the

type of postsecondary institution initially attended; and the extent of the students’

involvement in their first year of academic life. Unfortunately, due to the postsecondary

focus of the BPS survey with the exception of the type of high school credential (GED

versus diploma), variables related to early academic preparation and high school curricula,

which have been shown to be strongly associated with postsecondary persistence and

attainment, were not available for inclusion in the model.

The adjusted proportions of students pursuing a bachelor’s degree who were

continuously enrolled through spring 1992 are shown in table 13. Once all the variables

were held constant, four factors were no longer significantly related to persistence: age

(under 24 or older), single parent status, high school credential type, and immediate entry

 

35Given the substantial limitations imposed by the small sample sizes of minority groups in the BPS

survey, we could not control for these factors in a simple tabular analysis.

36An exploratory analysis that included a number of independent variables (identified in subsequent

paragraphs) was initially conducted. Variables that were not significant were removed from the model,

and the resulting regression coefficients for variables that significant were used to adjust the original

estimates.

37“Immediately after high school graduation” means within 1 year of high school graduation.
30

Figure 9—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who reported a

vocational certificate as their current educational objective, by their

persistence status as of Spring 1992, by race–ethnicity

51.1 58.4 42.9

4.9

9.1

4.3

43.9 32.3 52.7

Race-ethnicity

White, nonHispanicBlack, nonHispanicHispanic

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Left school with no degree

Completed

Still enrolled

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey, first follow-up (1992).
31

into postsecondary education. These were subsequently removed from the model. While

these four variables have been shown to be individually associated with reduced

persistence and attainment rates, students with these attributes (i.e., students who are

older, single parents, those who delayed entry into postsecondary education, and

recipients of GED credentials) are also more likely to attend community colleges rather

than 4-year institutions and to attend on a part-time basis.38 Therefore, when these related

variables were included in the model, the age-related factors were no longer significant.

There were a number of variables related to students’ educational activities that

were positively associated with continuous enrollment toward a bachelor’s degree when

all other variables were held constant. For example, if students attended full time during

their entire first year in college, they were more likely to persist than were students

attending less time. Students who worked part time while they were enrolled in their first

year fared better than those who worked full time as did students who reported more

active involvement in their academic life when compared with those who reported never

participating in academic activities outside of class.

The amount of financial aid received in 1989–90 also made a difference in

persistence, with students receiving $5,000 or more persisting at higher rates than those

who received less. On the other hand, there was no difference in persistence rates for

students who initially enrolled in a private, not-for-profit 4-year institution compared with

those enrolled in public 4-year institutions.

Family background characteristics such as income and parents’ education were

related to persistence in expected ways: students from high income families persisted

better than those from middle income families and students whose parents were college

graduates persisted better than did students whose parents had no more than a high school

education.

Finally, the demographic variables that made a difference in persistence were

gender, with female students more likely to persist than males, and marital status, with

unmarried students being more likely to persist than married students.

After controlling for all the variables that were associated with persistence, the

relationship among racial−ethnic groups with respect to their persistence rates changed to

some degree. For example, compared with white, non-Hispanic students, Asian/Pacific

Islander students pursuing a bachelor’s degree were more likely to be continuously

enrolled through spring 1992, while black, non-Hispanic students were less likely to be so.

Persistence for Hispanic students, on the other hand, did not differ significantly from that

of white, non-Hispanic students. Moreover, the adjusted persistence rate for Hispanic

students showed a substantial increase (46 percent to 55 percent for those who were

continuously enrolled). Two possible explanations for this increase may be that Hispanic

 

38See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond,

1992 Descriptive Summary of 1980 High School Sophomores (Washington, DC, 1995), and Profile of

Older Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education (Washington, DC: 1995)
32

students pursuing a bachelor’s degree are much more likely to initially enroll in a 2-year

institution (45 percent compared with 19 percent of white, non-Hispanic students), and

that they are less likely to be enrolled full time for a full year (40 percent compared with

64 percent of white, non-Hispanic students).39 When these factors, which are known to

negatively influence persistence to a bachelor’s degree, were controlled for the persistence

rate for Hispanic students increased.

Table 13—Percentage of 1989−90 beginning postsecondary students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree who were continuously enrolled through spring 1992,

and the adjusted percentage taking into account the covariation of

variables listed in the table1

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

means2 means3coefficient4error5

Total 56.8 0.541

Racial–ethnic

Black, non-Hispanic 50.3 48.3 -0.087 0.036 *

Hispanic 46.0 55.0 -0.020 0.042

Asian/Pacific Islander 68.8 70.5 0.135 0.043**

American Indian/

 Alaskan Native —   

White, non-Hispanic 57.6 57.0

Persistence status AY: 89–90

Not full-time, full-year 41.9 46.9 -0.163 0.022 **

Full-time, full-year 66.0 63.2

Hours worked/week when

 enrolled AY: 89–90

Not working 56.7 55.0 0.034 0.021

1−19 hours 65.6 60.6 0.089 0.021 **

20−34 hours 57.7 59.3 0.076 0.022 **

35 or more hours 47.5 51.7

Family income percentile rank 1988

1–25th percentile 53.5 53.7 0.000 0.022

75th–100th percentile 63.9 64.6 0.109 0.022 **

26th–74th percentile 53.9 53.7

Gender

Female 60.5 60.0 0.064 0.015 **

Male 53.0 53.6

Average involvement AY: 89−90

Once 51.9 54.8 0.061 0.032

Sometimes 60.8 58.2 0.095 0.025 **

Often 67.0 61.6 0.129 0.030 **

Never 36.3 48.7

 

39These are estimates from the NCES BPS:90/92 Data Analysis System.
33

Table 13—Percentage of 1989−90 beginning postsecondary students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree who were continuously enrolled through spring 1992,

and the adjusted percentage taking into account the covariation of

variables listed in the table1—Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

means2 means3coefficient4error5

Type of institution AY: 89−90

Public, less-than-4-year 42.3 54.2 -0.050 0.032

Private, not-for-profit

 less-than-4-year 32.7 36.6 -0.226 0.058**

Private, not-for-profit 4-year 64.2 55.5 -0.037 0.028

Private, for-profit 19.6 30.6 -0.286 0.179

Public, 4-year 59.6 59.2

Marital status AY: 89–90

Married 24.2 37.0 -0.208 0.044 **

Divorced/separated/widowed 26.3 43.7 -0.141 0.073

Never married 58.5 57.8

Parent’s highest education level

Some PSE 55.4 55.4 0.015 0.020

Bachelor’s degree or more 63.0 59.6 0.057 0.022**

High school or less 49.2 53.9

Total financial aid AY: 89–90

No aid 52.2 53.0 -0.141 0.030**

Less than $1,000 57.1 60.1 -0.070 0.033*

$1,000–$2,999 58.0 58.0 -0.091 0.027**

$3,000–$4,999 56.2 55.6 -0.115 0.024**

$5,000 or more 69.5 67.1

1Last group in each category is the reference group for comparison (blank entries).

2Estimates from NCES BPS:90/92 Data Analysis System.

3

Proportions adjusted for differences in the proportion continuously enrolled that were associated with differences in

other variables in the table (see appendix B for details).

4Weighted least squares regression coefficient.

5

Standard error of regression coefficient adjusted for design effect (see appendix B for details).

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

NOTE: Age, high school degree (GED), single parent status, and delayed entry status were redundant variables (no

significant differences) and were removed to produce the reduced model.

Recent Changes in Persistence

In order to determine whether or not 3-year persistence rates for beginning

undergraduates had changed over time, we compared the BPS persistence rates with those

of the 1980 High School and Beyond (HS&B) sophomore cohort for the same period of

time. For comparability between the two samples, the comparison was limited to

undergraduates who initially entered a 4-year college or university immediately following
34

their high school graduation (“immediate entrants”). HS&B students would have started

their college education in the fall of 1982–83, while BPS students began their education in

the fall of 1989–90. All students enrolled during the month of May in the third year after

their initial enrollment were considered persisters. This included students who may have

left school and subsequently reenrolled before the month of May in either 1985 or 1992.

Overall, for undergraduates who entered a 4-year institution immediately after

their high school graduation, persistence over 3 years appeared to decline somewhat

between students entering in 1982–83 and those entering in 1989–90 (78 percent

compared with 75 percent).40 However, this was primarily due to a decline in white, nonHispanic students’ persistence rates (figure 10). Even though it appears that persistence

may have improved for black, non-Hispanic students (62 percent compared with 71

percent) and declined for Hispanic students (76 percent compared with 71 percent), the

difference between the BPS and HS&B cohorts was not significant for either group.41

Thus, at this time it is difficult to draw conclusions about changes in persistence between

these two cohorts especially with regard to minority students. As BPS students progress

further in their educational programs and more data become available, degree attainment

comparisons between BPS and HS&B will be possible.

 

40NCES BPS:90/92 Data Analysis System.

41This is in part due to the small sample sizes in this subgroup for both cohorts.
35

Figure 10—Percentage of 1982–83 and 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students

who initially enrolled in a 4-year institution the fall after their high

school graduation, who were still enrolled in May three years later (May

1985 or May 1992)

White, nonHispanicBlack,nonHispanicHispanic

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Race-ethnicity

90.7 89.9

62.1

70.7

76.0

71.2

79.8

74.4

Asian or

Pacific Islander

1982–83 (HS&B)

1989–90 (BPS)

NOTE: Students who interrupted their education and re-enrolled are included if they were enrolled in May of their

third year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey, first follow-up (1992), and High School and Beyond Student Survey (1982).
36

Appendix A

Glossary

This glossary describes the variables used in this analysis in the order that they

appear in the report. The variables were taken directly from the NCES NPSAS:90

undergraduate and BPS:90/92 Data Analysis Systems, NCES software applications that

generate tables from the NPSAS:90 and BPS:90/92 data. A description of the DAS

software can be found in appendix B. The labels in parentheses correspond to the names

of the variables in the DAS.

Student Background Characteristics

Race–ethnicity (RACE)

The following definitions of racial–ethnic groups correspond to OMB classifications

(Policy directive No. 15, May 12, 1977). The survey participants were not given specific

definitions but were asked to identify themselves; first according to race (American

Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, black, white); then whether or not they

were of Hispanic origin; and for those who were Hispanic, whether they were

Mexican/Mexican American/ Chicano, Cuban, or Puerto Rican. Similarly, American

Indian/Alaskan Natives were asked their tribal affiliation and Asian/Pacific Islanders were

asked their specific ethnic group (Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean,

Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Samoan, or Guamanian).

Asian/ A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far

Pacific Islander East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine

Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam.

Black, A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa, 

non-Hispanic not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

American Indian/ A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

Alaskan Native America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal 

affiliation or community recognition.

White, A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,

non-Hispanic North Africa or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).
37

Citizenship (CITZNSHP)

Citizen Student was a U.S. citizen.

Eligible non-citiz. Student was a not a citizen of the United States but satisfied the

requirements to be eligible for financial aid. An example of an

eligible noncitizen would be a person with permanent residence

status.

Other Student was a not a citizen of the United States and was not eligible

for federal financial aid. An example would be a student who had

been granted temporary residence in the United States (e.g., on a

student visa).

Gender of student (GENDER)

Male

Female

Age as of 12/31/89 (AGE)

This is a continuous variable that was aggregated to the following categories:

23 years old or Student was 23 years old or younger as of 12/31/89.

younger

24−29 years old Student was between 24 and 29 years old as of 12/31/89.

30 years old or older Student was 30 years old or older as of 12/31/89.

Income percentile (FAMINCPR)

Income percentile ranks are calculated separately for dependent and independent students.

For dependent students, the percentile rank is based on family income (DEPINC); for

independents, it is based on the independent students’ income (INDEPINC).

Lower 25th Income falls at or below the lowest quartile of undergraduates’

percentile income distribution.

26th to 75th Income falls between the 25th and 75th percentile of
38

percentile undergraduates’ income distribution.

Upper 25th Income falls at or above the 75th percentile of undergraduates’

percentile income distribution.

Institutional and Educational Characteristics

Control of institution (CONTROL)

Public A postsecondary education institution operated by publicly elected or

appointed officials in which the program and activities are under the

control of these officials and which is supported primarily by public

funds.

Private, A postsecondary institution that is controlled by an independent

not-for-profit governing board and incorporated under section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code.

Private, A postsecondary institution that is privately owned and operated as a 

for-profit profit-making enterprise. Includes career colleges and proprietary 

institutions.

Level of institution (TYPE)

Highest award offered at an institution.

Less-than-2-year Institution where all of the programs are less than 2 years in duration.

The institution must offer a minimum of one program of at least 3

months in duration that results in a terminal certificate or license or is

creditable toward a formal 2-year or higher award.

2- to 3-year Institution that confers at least a 2-year formal award (certificate or

associate’s degree) or offers a 2- or 3-year program that partially

fulfills requirements for a baccalaureate or higher degree at a 4-year

institution. The institution does not award a baccalaureate. These

would include most community or junior colleges. Note: In this

report, 2- to 3-year institutions were referred to as “2-year.”

4-year non- Institution or subsidiary element that confers at least a baccalaureate 

doctoral- degree in one or more programs, but does not award higher than a

granting master’s degree.
39

4-year doctoral- Institution that confers a doctoral or first professional degree in one 

granting or more programs. Note: In this report, non-doctoral and doctoral 

institutions were aggregated to a classification called “4-year.”

Historically black college or university (HBCU)

Colleges and universities identified as HBCU were obtained from the Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) institutional characteristics file and

merged with the NPSAS:90 data. Students who were enrolled in an HBCUs were

subsequently identified. Since most HBCUs are 4-year public or private, not-for-profit

institutions, comparisons between students in HBCUs and non-HBCUs were limited to

these types of institutions.

Undergraduate degree program (PROGTYP)

Type of program undergraduate was enrolled in during the 1989–90 academic year

reported by the institution, aggregated in this report to “less than bachelor’s degree” and

“bachelor’s degree.”

Associate’s degree Student pursuing an associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree Student pursuing a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science

degree.

Undergraduate’s Student pursuing a certificate or formal award other than an

certificate associate’s or bachelor’s degree.

Other undergraduate Student is not enrolled in any of the above programs.

Major field of study (MAJORS3)

Humanities English, liberal arts, philosophy, theology, art, music, visual and

performing arts.

Social/behavioral Psychology, economics, political science, other social science.

science

Life sciences Biology.

Physical sciences Physical science, physical sciences technology.

Mathematics Mathematics.
40

Computer/informa- Computer science, computer technology.

tion technology

Engineering Engineering, engineering technology.

Education Elementary/secondary education, other education.

Business Accounting, finance, secretarial, business, marketing.

management

Health Nursing RN, practical nursing, pre-med, other medical.

Vocational/ Mechanic technology, protective service, skilled crafts, 

technical transportation, construction.

Other technical/ Agriculture, architecture, journalism, communications,

professional cosmetology, health technology, home economics, pre-law, paralegal, court reporting, social work.

Aspiration, degree planned (EXEDCOL)

The highest level of education that the student expected to complete. Master’s and

Ph.D./professional degrees were aggregated to “advanced degree.”

Less than a Student expected to attend a trade school or some college, but

bachelor’s degree not to earn a bachelor’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree Student expected to earn a bachelor’s degree.

Master’s degree Student expected to earn a master’s degree.

Ph.D./professional Student expected to earn a doctoral or first-professional degree.

Note: It has been found from NCES longitudinal surveys that students’ aspirations tend to

be much higher than the degree they actually attain.
41

Reasons for selecting the institution (PLACEMT; GD_REP; COURSOFF; SCHNWRK;

BETTRJOB; SHORTER; FINAID; LIVEHOME; FRIENDAT)

Students were asked to indicate whether certain reasons were “very important,”

“somewhat important,” or “not important” to them in deciding upon the school they

attended in fall 1989. Table 11 reports the percentages of students who reported the

following reasons were “somewhat or very important.”

The school had a good reputation for placing its graduates.

The school had a good reputation.

The school offered the course of study the student wanted.

The student had a better chance of getting a job at school.

The student could work while attending the school.

The student could finish the course in a short period of time.

The student obtained the financial aid needed at the school.

The student could live at home.

The student had friends who attended the same school.

Received financial aid (TOTAID)

Student received financial assistance during the period July 1989 to June 1990 in the form

of grants, loans, or work from sources other than family or self to help finance student’s

education. Students receiving aid were identified by the TOTAID variable having a

positive value.

Grants (TOTGRT)

Total grants received between July 1989 and June 1990. Grants are a type of student

financial aid that does not require repayment or employment. At the undergraduate level it

is usually (but not always) awarded on the basis of need, possibly combined with some

skills or characteristics the student possesses. Grants are more frequently awarded on a

merit basis at the graduate level. Grants include scholarships and fellowships. The

percentage of students with grants is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for

this variable. The average amount received is the average for all students who received

grants.

Total loan amount (TOTLOAN)

Total loans received between July 1989 and June 1990. This includes all loans through

federal, state, or institutional programs except PLUS loans (which are made to parents).

Loans are a type of student financial aid that advances funds and that are evidenced by a

promissory note requiring the recipient to repay the specified amounts under prescribed
42

conditions. The percentage of students with loans is the percentage with positive amounts

recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average for all students who

received loans.

Beginning Postsecondary Students’ (BPS) Persistence

This analysis is based on data collected from a nationally representative sample of firsttime beginning students in postsecondary education in academic year 1989–90. Students

were surveyed in 1990 and again in the spring of 1992. The National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study of 1990 (NPSAS:90) provided the base year data for the Beginning

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Survey which re-interviewed these students in the

spring of 1992.

Degree goal (DEGGOAL)

Degree intention was determined from the response to the question, “Toward which

degree or other award are the courses you are taking leading?” It was therefore possible

for students to be working toward a degree that the institution did not offer (for example,

a student could be attending a community college and working toward a bachelor’s

degree).

None Student was not in formal degree program.

Vocational cert. Student reported a vocational certificate or license as current

or license degree goal.

Associate’s degree Student reported an associate’s degree as current degree goal.

Bachelor’s degree Student reported a bachelor’s degree as current degree goal.

Other Student was not pursuing any of the above goals.

Bachelor’s degree persistence (BARESULT)

Refers to students whose degree goal was a bachelor’s degree. Because students would

not normally complete a baccalaureate within the survey period, the variable emphasizes

continuity of enrollment. Students are classified as follows:

Continuously Student had no interruption in enrollment of more than 4

enrolled consecutive months.

Reenrolled following Student had an interruption in enrollment of more than 4

interrupted enrollment consecutive months and reenrolled.
43

Left without reenrollment Student left school without attaining an award and did not

and without credential reenroll during survey period.

Enrollment is defined as continuous if enrollment is never interrupted for more than four

consecutive months. Reenrollment for associate’s and bachelor’s degree are those who

had reenrolled at least once by the time of the spring 1992 follow-up survey. It is

important to note that reenrollment does not necessarily imply current (spring 1992)

enrollment. Students who reenrolled may have experienced subsequent interruptions in

enrollment. A very small percentage (about 1.5 percent) of students identified as

continuously enrolled reported completing their degree.

Associate’s degree persistence (AARESULT)

Refers to students whose degree goal was an associate’s degree. The measure emphasizes

both degree completion and continuity of enrollment. Enrollment is defined as continuous

if enrollment is never interrupted for more than four consecutive months. Reenrollment for

associate’s and bachelor’s degree are those who had reenrolled at least once by the time of

the spring 1992 follow-up survey. It is important to note that reenrollment does not

necessarily imply current (spring 1992) enrollment. Students are classified as follows:

Completed Student reported attaining associate’s degree.

Continuously enrolled Student still enrolled and did not interrupt enrollment for 

more than 4 consecutive months.

Reenrolled following Student interrupted enrollment for a period lasting longer

interrupted enrollment than 4 consecutive months and reenrolled.

Left without reenrollment Student left school without and attaining an award and did

and without credential not reenroll during survey period.

Because of the small sample sizes of minority students, the continuously enrolled and

reenrolled categories were aggregated.

Vocational certificate or license (ANYCERT)

Refers to students whose degree goal was a vocational certificate or license. Because

these programs are typically of short duration, the measures emphasize degree completion.

Students are classified as follows:

Completed, less Student completed certificate or license in less than 9 months.

than 9 months

Completed, 9 Student completed certificate or license in 9 months or more.
44

or more months

Still enrolled Student was enrolled at time of survey.

Left without Student left school without attaining certificate and did not

credential during survey period.

Because of the small sample sizes of minority students, the two “completed” categories

were aggregated.

Additional BPS Variables Included in Multivariate Analysis

Enrollment status (ATTNST3)

This variable represents students’ enrollment (reported by the student) over the entire

academic year (9 months).

Full-time, full-year This category includes students who were enrolled full time for

9 months.

Part-time and/or Includes students who were not enrolled full time for at least

part-year nine months. Thus it includes students enrolled full time for one

term and part time for an entire year, and students enrolled full

or part time for one term and not enrolled for a second term.

Parent education (PAREDUC)

The highest level of education completed by the student’s parents (mother’s or father’s

education, whichever was highest).

High school or less High school diploma, GED, or less than a high school diploma.

Postsecondary, but Trade school, 2 years of college or more (but not a bachelor’s

less than a bachelor’s degree).

Bachelor’s or higher Bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree, or

professional degree.

Average number of hours worked per week while enrolled in 1989–90 (EMWKHR3)

Did not work Student did not report working during enrollment.
45

1–19 hours/week Student reported working part time, fewer than 20 hours/week.

20–34 hours/week Student reported working part time, from 20 to 34 hours/week.

35 or more Student reported working full time, 35 or more hours/week 

hours/week while enrolled.

Marital status in 1990 (MARITAL)

Never married Student had not married as of the 1989–90 academic year.

Married Student was married as of the 1989–90 academic year.

Divorced/separated/ Student was divorced, separated, or widowed as of the 1989–

widowed 90 academic year.

Time of entry into postsecondary education (STUDTYPE)

Traditional Entered within one year of high school graduation.

Non-traditional Entered one year or more following high school graduation.

The degree of academic and social involvement at NPSAS institution (INVOLVE)

This index is based on the student’s reported frequency (never, once, sometimes, often) of

the following activities:

Contact with faculty outside of class.

Meetings with an advisor concerning academic plans.

Discussion of academic matters with faculty outside class.

Participation in study groups outside class.

Participation in cultural activities with friends from school.

Participation in school clubs.

Participation in intramural and intercollegiate activities.

Student never participated in activities.

The responses were coded from 1 to 4 for each activity and the mean response was

calculated and coded as follows:

Never Mean value less than 1.75

Once Mean value of 1.75 to less than 2.5
46

Sometimes Mean value of 2.5 to less than 3.75

Often Mean value of 3.75 or higher

Comparison of Persistence between HS&B Sophomore and BPS Cohorts

For comparability between the two cohorts, the comparison was limited to undergraduates

who entered a 4-year college or university immediately after high school graduation

(within one year after graduating for BPS and the fall following high school graduation for

HS&B).

Student was an immediate entrant into PSE

BPS variable: STUDTYPE Traditional entry into postsecondary education

Students who entered within one year of their high

school graduation.

HS&B variable: PSE8209 Enrollment status (full- or part-time) in September 1982.

Student entered a 4-year institution

BPS variable: SCHL8990 Level of institution AY 1989–90.

Limited to students enrolled in 4 year institutions.

HS&B variable: PSESTART Type of start in postsecondary education.

Limited to students enrolled full- or part-time in 4-year

institutions.

Student was enrolled as of May in the third year (includes continuous and noncontinuous enrollment)

BPS variable: PERSIST2 Enrollment persistence and attainment by May 1992.

Student was continuously or non-continuously enrolled

as of May 1992. This variable was used instead of other

BPS persistence variables (e.g., BARESULT) because it

was not associated with a specific degree goal and it

indicated a specific date of enrollment, regardless of

whether student interrupted enrollment or not. Thus, it

was the most comparable to the HS&B persistence

variables.

HS&B variable: PSE8505 Enrollment status (full- or part-time) as of May 1985.
47

Appendix B

Technical Notes and Methodology

The 1989–90 NPSAS and the 1990−92 Beginning Postsecondary Student Surveys

The need for a nationally representative database on postsecondary student

financial aid prompted the U.S. Department of Education to conduct the National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study, a survey conducted every three years beginning in

1987. The NPSAS sample was designed to include students enrolled in all types of

postsecondary education. Thus, it included students enrolled in public institutions; private,

not-for-profit institutions; and private, for-profit institutions. The sample included students

at 4-year and 2-year institutions, as well as students enrolled in occupationally specific

programs that lasted for less than 2 years.

The 1990−92 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/92)

followed students identified as first-time beginning (FTB) students in the academic year

1989–90 from the NPSAS:90 sample. A follow-up was conducted 2 years after the

NPSAS:90 survey that obtained information concerning enrollment, program completion,

education financing, employment, and family formation; expectations for graduate school;

participation in additional education (provided by an employer or other non-postsecondary

provider); family income and expenditure; goals and aspirations; and civic participation.

The data derived from this survey permit a variety of analyses concerning postsecondary

persistence and completion, entry into the work force, and civic participation.

NPSAS:90 included a stratified sample of approximately 69,000 eligible students

(about 47,000 of whom were undergraduates) from about 1,100 institutions. Students

were included in the sample if they attended a NPSAS-eligible institution; were enrolled

between July 1, 1989 and June 30, 1990; and were enrolled in one or more courses or

programs including courses for credit, a degree or formal award program of at least 3

months’ duration, or an occupationally or vocationally specific program of at least 3

months’ duration. Regardless of their postsecondary status, however, students who were

also enrolled in high school were excluded.

For each of the students included in the NPSAS sample, there were up to three

sources of data. First, institution registration and financial aid records were extracted.

Second, a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) designed for each student was

conducted. Finally, a CATI designed for the parents or guardians of a subsample of

students was conducted. Data from these three sources were synthesized into a single

system with an overall response rate of about 89 percent. For example, the variable age

was determined by first checking student responses. If a student did not provide this

information, age was taken from the institutional record abstract.
48

For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult Methodology Report for the

1990 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (Longitudinal Studies Branch,

Postsecondary Education Statistics Division, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 92-080, June 1992).

NPSAS:90 yielded an initial set of 11,700 BPS students, which contained 10,566

students who had been selected as undergraduate students, and 1,134 students who were

later identified as graduate or first-professional students as discussed above. The

BPS:90/92 sample consisted of 10,624 members for whom response and eligibility status

were defined. Sample-based adjustment cell weighting was used to compensate for BPS

nonresponse and ineligibility. The weighted percent responding at this phase of data

collection (i.e., the estimated percent of the population represented by the sample of

students for whom eligibility could be determined using the BPS procedures) was 85.8

percent. Both the weighted and unweighted percentages of respondents among the

sample students known to be eligible for BPS were 99.7 percent. Therefore, the weighted

and unweighted BPS response rates (products of the above response rates for eligibility

determination and BPS interviewing) were 85.5 percent and 85.2 percent, respectively.

For more information on the BPS:90/92 survey, consult the Beginning

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up (BPS:90/92) Final Technical

Report, Postsecondary Longitudinal Studies Branch, Postsecondary Education Statistics

Division, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 555

New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20208-5652.

The High School and Beyond Fourth Followup

The High School and Beyond (HS&B) sophomore cohort was used to determine

changes in persistence between students beginning their college education in 1983−84

with the BPS cohort who began their education in 1989–90. The HS&B fourth followup,

conducted in the spring of 1992, focused exclusively on the sophomore class and had two

components: a respondent survey of 14,825 members of the 1980 sophomore cohort, and

a transcript study based on the 9,064 sophomore members who reported postsecondary

education attendance. The goals of the fourth followup were to obtain information on

issues of access to and choice of undergraduate and graduate educational institutions,

persistence in attaining educational goals and progress through the curriculum, rates of

degree attainment and of other educational outcomes, and labor market outcomes in

relation to educational attainment and labor market experiences. For more information on

the HS&B fourth followup, consult The High School and Beyond Fourth Followup

Methodology Report, Postsecondary Longitudinal Studies Branch, Postsecondary

Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department

of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20208-5652 1994.
49

Accuracy of Estimates

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad

categories of error occur in such estimates: sampling and non sampling errors. Sampling

errors may occur because observations are made only on samples of students, not on

entire populations. Non-sampling errors occur not only in sample surveys but also in

complete censuses of entire populations.

Non-sampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain

complete information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or

institutions refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain

items); ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or

unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other

errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and estimating missing data.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced primarily from the

NPSAS:90 undergraduate and BPS:90/92 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The HS&B

fourth followup DAS was used to make comparisons between the HS&B and BPS

persistence rates. The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate

their own tables from postsecondary data sets. With the DAS, users can recreate or

expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS

calculates proper standard errors42 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For

example, tables B1a, B1b, B2a, B2b, and B2c present the standard errors that correspond

to selected tables in the text. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce an

estimate, the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected

variables to be used for linear regression models. Also, output with the correlation matrix

are the design effects (DEFT) for all the variables identified in the matrix. Since statistical

procedures generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample

assumptions, the standard errors must be adjusted with the design effects to take into

account the NPSAS stratified sampling method. (See discussion under “Statistical

Procedures” below for adjustment procedure.)

 

42The NPSAS sample is not a simple random sample and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for

estimating sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of

the sampling procedures and calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for

computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a

Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.
50

Table B1aStandard errors for table 5: percentage distribution of undergraduate 

enrollment, by control of institution, and by race–ethnicity: 1989–90

Private Private

Public not-for-profit for-profit

Total 1.02 0.72 0.66

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.43 1.93 2.76

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.70 1.32 0.87

Black, non-Hispanic 2.99 1.47 2.58

Hispanic 3.19 2.52 2.32

White, non-Hispanic 1.06 0.85 0.55

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 3.91 3.55 1.40

Chinese 2.65 2.28 0.85

Japanese 2.41 2.14 0.92

Korean 3.72 3.50 0.92

Pacific Islander 2.52 1.73 1.59

Vietnamese 4.59 4.54 0.63

Other or nonspecified 2.35 1.48 1.70

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 4.49 3.56 2.02

Mexican 2.44 1.37 1.85

Puerto Rican 5.22 4.61 3.04

Other or nonspecified 3.97 3.53 3.34

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
51

Table B1bStandard errors for table 6: percentage distribution of undergraduate

enrollment, by level of institution, and by race–ethnicity: 1989–90

Less-than-2-year 2-year 4-year

Total 0.64 1.61 1.60

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 2.56 5.00 4.31

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.74 3.54 3.40

Black, non-Hispanic 2.41 3.87 3.30

Hispanic 2.48 3.67 3.30

White, non-Hispanic 0.56 1.77 1.77

Racial–ethnic subgroup Asian

Asian Indian 0.82 7.73 7.61

Chinese 0.63 6.96 6.81

Japanese 0.47 7.17 7.14

Korean 0.85 7.37 7.28

Pacific Islander 1.17 5.51 5.26

Vietnamese 0.52 7.36 7.26

Other or nonspecified 1.56 3.88 3.53

Racial–ethnic subgroup Hispanic

Cuban 1.37 8.38 8.18

Mexican 1.79 4.80 4.40

Puerto Rican 2.83 4.78 5.12

Other or nonspecified 3.53 3.79 3.71

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
52

Table B2aStandard errors for figure 7, percentage of 1989–90 beginning post-secondary

students who reported a bachelor’s degree as their current degree objective,

by their persistence status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity

Continuously enrolled Left school

Completed or re-enrolled with no degree

Total 1.38 1.10 1.17

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native — — —

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.62 6.13 4.19

Black, non-Hispanic 3.93 3.66 3.22

Hispanic 5.50 5.58 5.19

White, non-Hispanic 1.51 1.17 1.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey (BPS:90/92), Data Analysis System.

Table B2bStandard errors for figure 8, percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary

students who reported an associate’s degree as their current degree objective,

by their persistence status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity

Continuously enrolled Left school

Completed or re-enrolled with no degree

Total 1.26 2.11 2.07

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native — — —

Asian/Pacific Islander — — —

Black, non-Hispanic 3.27 6.47 6.07

Hispanic 5.64 8.59 7.94

White, non-Hispanic 1.43 2.22 2.20

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey (BPS:90/92), Data Analysis System.

Table B2cStandard errors for figure 9, percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary

students who reported a vocational certificate as their current educational

objective, by their persistence status as of spring 1992, by race–ethnicity

Left school

Completed Still enrolled with no certificate

Total 2.59 1.30 2.62

Race–ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native — — —

Asian/Pacific Islander — — —

Black, non-Hispanic 6.24 2.21 5.92

Hispanic 7.28 7.94 9.12

White, non-Hispanic 2.94 1.24 2.96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 National Beginning

Postsecondary Student Survey (BPS:90/92), Data Analysis System.
53

For more information about the 1990 NCES Data Analysis Systems, contact:

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Longitudinal Studies Branch

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: ADAMICO@INET.ED.GOV

Statistical Procedures

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistics.

Comparisons based on the estimates of the proportions include the estimates of the

probability of a Type I error, or significance level. The significance levels were determined

by calculating the Student’s t values for the differences between each pair of means or

proportions and comparing these with published tables of significance levels for two-tailed

hypothesis testing.

The 1989–90 NPSAS survey, while representative and statistically accurate, was

not a simple random sample. Instead, the survey sample was selected using a more

complex three-step procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of

selection at each level. First, postsecondary institutions were initially selected within

geographical strata. Once institutions were organized by zip code and state, they were

further stratified by control (i.e., public; private, not-for-profit; or private, for-profit) and

offering (less-than-2-year, 2- to 3-year, 4-year non doctoral-granting, and 4-year doctoralgranting). Sampling rates for students enrolled at different institutions and levels

(undergraduate or other) varied, resulting in better data for policy purposes, but at a cost

to statistical efficiency.

Student’s t values may be computed for comparisons using these tables’ estimates

with the following formula:

where P1 and P2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding

standard errors. Note that this formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the

estimates were not independent (for example, when comparing the percentages across a

percent distribution in this report, across a row in a table, a covariance term was added to

the denominator of the t-test formula).

t =

P - P

(se + se

1 2

1 2

2 2

)
54

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, the test

may make comparisons based on large t statistics appear to merit special attention. This

can be misleading since the magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed

differences in means or percentages but also to the number of students in the specific

categories used for comparison. Hence, a small difference compared across a large number

of students would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison is making

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when

making paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I

error for these comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single

comparison. When more than one difference between groups of related characteristics or

“families” are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a

level of significance for all of those comparisons taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p ≤ .05/k for a particular pairwise

comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees

both that the individual comparison would have p ≤ .05 and that when k comparisons were

made within a family of possible tests, the significance level of the comparisons would sum

to p ≤ .05.43

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females who

enrolled in postsecondary education only one comparison is possible (males v. females). In

this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated with a Student’s t test. When

students are divided into five racial–ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made,

then k = 10 and the significance level of each test must be p ≤ .05/10, or .005. The formula

for calculating family size (k) is as follows: k = j * (j - 1)/2, where j is the number of

categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race–ethnicity, there are five racial–

ethnic groups (American Indian, Asian, black, Hispanic, and white), so k = 5*(5-1)/2=10.

Adjustments of means

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional

factors that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example,

when examining the percentages for those who persist in postsecondary education by

race–ethnicity, it is impossible to know to what extent the observed variation is due to

race–ethnicity and to what extent it is due to differences in other factors such as income,

attendance status, and type of institution attended. However, if a table were produced

showing race–ethnicity within attendance status, within income group, within institution

type, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the patterns. For those cases where the

 

43The standard that p ≤.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance

level of the comparisons should sum to p ≤.05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p

≤.05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons

Journal of the American Statistical Association 56: 52−64.
55

sample size becomes too small to support controlling for another level of variation, one

must use other methods to take such variation into account.

Adjusted values for subgroup populations were obtained by regressing the

dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as, family income, race–ethnicity,

etc. The adjusted values were determined only for those independent variables that

remained were in the model. That is, the model was ‘reduced’ by removing variables

whose variance was accounted for by other variables. Once the model was reduced,

substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup variable(s) and the mean proportions for the

other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted proportion for some specified

subgroup holding all other variables constant. For example, consider the case in which two

variables, family income and race–ethnicity, are used to describe continuous enrollment in

a bachelors degree program. The variables family income and race–ethnicity are recoded

into two dummy variables representing family income and four dummy variables

representing race–ethnicity:

Family Income:

I1 I2

Low Income 1 0

High Income 0 1

Middle Income 0 0

and;

Race–ethnicity:

R1 R2 R3 R4

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 0 0 0

Asian/Pacific Islander 0 1 0 0

Black, non-Hispanic 0 0 1 0

Hispanic 0 0 0 1

White, non-Hispanic 0 0 0 0

Equation 1.1 is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from the DAS:

^

Y = a + b1I1 + b2I2 + b3R1 + b4R2 + b5R3 + b6R4 (1.1)

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluation at the mean of all other

variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or

0) and the mean for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example,
56

say we had a case where Y=persistence was being described by I1 through R4 (coded as

shown above), and suppose the means for I1 through R4 are:

Variable X

I1 0.255

I2 0.244

R1 0.008

R2 0.040

R3 0.097

R4 0.073

Estimating 1.1 above from the correlation matrix and the regression results in:

^

Y = 0.542+(0.015)I1+(0.101)I2+(-0.092)R1+(0.116)R2+(-0.061)R3+(-0.107)R4

To estimate the adjusted value for blacks, one substitutes the appropriate values for the

intercept and each dummy variable.

Variable Value b

a 0.542

I1 0.255 0.015

I2 0.244 0.101

R1 0 -0.092

R2 0 0.116

R3 1 -0.061

R4 0 -0.107

This results in:

^

Y = 0.542+(0.255)(0.015)+(0.244)(0.101)+(-0.092)(0)+(0.116)(0)+(-0.061)(1)+(-

0.107)(0)

^

Y = 0.5095

In this case the adjusted mean for black students is 0.5095 and represents the expected

persistence rate for black students pursuing a bachelor’s degree who were continuously

enrolled and who look like the average student across all the other variables (in this

example, income).
57

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using NPSAS:90 or

BPS:90/92 data, since one of the output options of the DAS is a correlation matrix,

computed using pair-wise missing values.44 This matrix can be used by most commercial

regression packages as input for producing weighted least-square estimates of the

parameters. That was the general approach used for this report, with two additional

adjustments described below to reduce the effect of redundant parameters and to

incorporate the design effect for statistical testing.

Since many of the independent variables are interrelated (as previously discussed in

the report), the presence of some variables in the model is redundant. That is, the variance

explained by them will have been accounted for by other variables in the model.

Accordingly, variables without explanatory power were removed, resulting in a reduced

regression model. The reduced model was then used to produce the parameter estimates

shown in the above formula. For example, the variable age is highly related to financial

dependency status since one of the definitions of financial independence is being over the

age of 24. Therefore, the variable age may account for the variation observed for

dependency status when both variables are present in the model. In this case, the

dependency status variable would be removed from the model.

Most commercial regression packages compute parameter standard errors on the

assumption of simple random sampling. For the data used in this report, this assumption is

incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to multiply each standard

error by the DEFT of the dependent variable,45 where DEFT is the ratio of the true

standard error to the standard error computed under the assumption of simple random

sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and is available with the correlation matrix.

 

44Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of

models. Analysts who wish to use different error assumptions than pairwise or to estimate probit/logit

models can apply for a restricted data license from NCES.

45The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in the Analysis of Complex Surveys, eds. C.J.

Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).